It's just that they are constrained by the fact that the truth never seems to fit with their needs or desires. So the only way to maintain their (and, at least for the grifters, more impirtantly) and their dupes "alternate reality" is to lie. Doctoring evidence being just one of many techniques for that.
Over half a century ago, Robert Heinlein's "Future History" included a period where the United States was in the grip of a totalitarian theocracy. Sadly, the only part he seems to have missed was that it is not (yet) religion based. At least as far as its initial leader is concerned.** Sadly, the only question yet to be answered is how the succession will be determined.
I realize that, as the resident optimist, I should be talking about how we will bounce back once Trump leaves the scene. Certainly I hope that happens. But it's increasingly difficult to expect it. Alas, Carney is probably correct about where the world goes from here.
** Well, he also predicted the US would be totally isolationist (as in cutting off all interaction with the rest of the world) throughout this. The rest of the world, at this point, probably hopes it works out that way. And sooner rather than later.
GftNC -- he has enriched himself to the tune of $1.5 billion. Wow, brazen corruption in full view. It’s almost funny after the accusations about the Biden Crime Family:
Well, it's been true since the beginning of his first campaign for President that every accusation he made was actually a confession. This is just a small addition to an enormous pile. He simply cannot imagine that anyone would fail to exploit anyone and anything they could, just like he does.
lj -- I’m not sure how much we can bang that drum to indicate our inherent goodness. The fact that he was the first nominated (by a major political party) and went directly on to being elected makes him seem more like an outlier than a true indicator.
I'm not arguing for inherent goodness. Just that we've gotten better. Or less bad, if you prefer.
As for Obama being an outlier, I wouldn't dispute that. He's definitely an exceptionally gifted politician. I'd say the most gifted in my lifetime. But within (my) living memory, no black man, no matter how gifted, could have done what he did. Or even gotten within a thousand miles of getting the opportunity to try. That's a solid indication of progress. IMHO, of course.
russell -- I’d like to think we have somehow moved past the white supremacist legacy of our history, but I don’t think we have. I’m not sure if it’s a matter of re-remembering, I don’t think it ever went away. Trump just gives it permission to come back out in the light of day.
I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say "as a nation" because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not. A huge but decreasing number, which is why I say "in the process." Still huge, but decreasing -- not just as a portion of the population, but as a portion of the white population. That's what has people like Miller frantic.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. "Inconceivable" is the word.
nous -- I do worry, however, that this simplification might obscure the degree to which economics and safety are entangled with climate.
Certainly true.
But at this point, we can do something about economics and safety relatively quickly. Not solve them completely by any means, but visibly start making progress. Having solid reasons to hope and expect things will get better, because they are already visibly improving -- that puts a big weight on the side of "I think I'll just stay where I am and work on doing better here." Most people don't like the idea of up and moving to an unfamiliar place, especially one with a different language and a different culture. Give them a reason to avoid it, and mostly they will.
Climate change, on the other hand, is something where we can, at most mitigate some of the damage. But, no matter what we do, it will continue to get worse before it gets better. We can manage "get worse more slowly" and "not get as much worse". But that's the most we can do at this point.
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that's not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
Suppose (strictly for the sake of discussion!) that we're being reasonable when worrying about immigration**. (This addresses, but does not require, the Great Replacement Theory.) What's the most effective, the most cost-effective, (not to mention the most humane, because that's apparently of no importance to those worried about immigration) approach?
Answering that requires answering the motivation question: Why do they come? The simple answer: economics and safety. Not macroeconomic generalities, but the microeconomics of individuals. Combined with, and overlapping with, the legal environment. There are other motivations, such as moving to be near family members, or even climate. But those are tiny in comparison.
So, the obvious solution to the assumed problem, is to reduce the motivation. If there are abundant economic opportunities for individuals where they are, most people will not take on the emotional and financial cost to emigrating; basically, they'll stay home. If they can live without fear, of criminal, governmental, or other attacks, people will mostly stay home. TL;DR: remove, or even seriously reduce, the motivation, and your assumed immigration problem goes away.
So, the blindingly obvious answer has two parts: 1) improve the economies of the places your immigrants are coming from. 2) improve the governance, specifically the rule of law, of the places your unwanted immigrants are coming from. Reducing to push to move.
Are we doing anything like that? Not any more.
What we do seem to be doing instead is addressing those issues by trashing our own economy, and simultaneously trashing the rule of law. Removing the attraction. It is, after all, the difference in those which provides the motivation.
If I'm understanding correctly, one big advantage is that this "spends the money here, not elsewhere." At least in the economically ignorant view to those driving it. It's bad for us, too, but either they can't see that or they just assume it won't impact them personally.
Oh, yes. The other motivation for immigration, in some cases, is that other places are just too crowded. If you improve the economy, somewhere population growth drops, or even disappears altogether. We've seen that extremely consistently. When people get richer, they tend on average to have fewer children. Another reason to improve economies elsewhere.
** Immigration has been an enormous economic boon to this country. The people already here have consistently objected to whichever group is perceived as comprising the current bulk of the immigrants. But those immigrants built the country even so. Both physically and economically. Still do.
Geography nerds' quiz: Part of Alaska (the panhandle, including the state capital) is not an island, but can only be reached by car by driving thru another country. What other state includes that feature?
First impression: Fascinating that Japan is grouped with North Korea as well as South. But Thailand? Where did that come from?
OK, I look at the key and get a glimmer. But it still seems pretty daft. Just for openers, it utterly ignores the realities of anything but current national boundaries.
For example, Tibet was never colonized, controlled, or influenced by Europe. And not part of China until well after European influence was being eradicated in the PRC. For that matter, all of Russia** east of the Urals should be "colonized by Europe", not part of Europe. Just like the Stans in central Asia.
** For that matter, a case could be made that even European Russia qualifies as "partial European influence" -- the cultural differences from the rest of Europe are pretty stark.
Charles was actually agreeing with you. If these thugs were real law enforcement, they would routinely wear body cams. (Which, be it noted, are also real useful if there's an actual court case to be made in these situations.). The reason they weren't wearing them is that they are nothing like real law enforcement.
That timing of the snatch happening just after meeting with the Chinese has been taken by some as a warning to China, and it is difficult to imagine that the US didn’t know Maduro’s schedule, however, I would have expected Trump to crow about it in some way, so maybe it was dumb luck?
I would expect that, if the timing was dumb luck, Trump would be crowing like it was his brilliant planning. Neither do I think it likely it was a warning -- that would be a level of subtlety the current administration seems incapable of.
I think a more likely possibility is that it was carefully timed out of (absolutely never under any circumstances to be admitted!) fear of the possible Chinese reaction. Trump might (probably did) warn his buddy Putin, so Russians would be moved out of harms' way. But, not having that kind of BFF relationship with Xi, what was left was careful timing.
as far as i can see, all there are are masked thugs doing thuggish things with the full backing of a gang of thuggish morons, who were elected by drooling wannabe thugs.
Certainly there is an enormous amount of that on the streets. But that behavior inevitable gets a lot more attention. Just as a riot which extends across a half dozen city blocks, in a city of several million, is all you will see on the news.
But consider the last time you arrived on an international flight. The guy doing customs inspections was also ICE (customs enforcement, right?). But, at least in my observation, those folks are courteous and polite to everybody, regardless of how they look or what their proficiency in English. If all of ICE was the thugs, I'd expect something less.
russell: In general, she says, the officers are kind to the folks they are handling. She hasn’t met that many – 10 or 12? – but that’s the pattern. So at least some of these people have retained some degree of their own humanity.
I think it's useful to distinguish between those ICE officers who have been hired under Trump and those who were not. The group who were hired under Trump are pretty uniformly scum who ought to be booted out as soon as possible. (With criminal charges where those can be sustained.)
The other group probably includes some bad apples. But the majority should be assumed to be normal people, absent evidence otherwise in specific cases.
I know it's tempting to generalize. ("All ICE agents are horrible!" "All white people are racists!" etc.) But it is not helpful if the goal is to solve a problem, or change a behavior which some of the group is engaging in.
It also fails to mention that the USGS, which maps mineral deposits (my dad worked for it before he went into the Navy Oceanographic department) was subject to the DOGE cuts, with about 20% being let go or taking early retirement.
There are two obvious possibilities here. First, the importance of rare earths, and the fact that China currently dominates supplies, may have simply escaped the notice of the the ignoramuses in the administration. So no reason to tell DOGE that USGS was off limits.
Second, the administration has shown across the board distain for competence, let alone expertise, After all, everything of importance has been known for decades. So obviously no need for anything like a geologist. A possible exception of everything already being known might be earthquakes. But since those only impact California, who cares. Certainly if we don't care about knowing about hurricanes (which actually threaten Mar-a-Lago)....
I think this is more about rare earths, strategic positioning and what it is going to cost to do what is necessary to keep China and Russia at bay.
It is well to remember that "rare earths" are not, in point of fact, rare. Certainly there are places with greater amounts (bits of Greenland among them). But the reason they are rare is just that it is extremely difficult (and, with current technology, highly polluting) to separate them from each other.
If you don't care about the pollution, you could refine them in Wyoming, Missouri, or California -- all of which have significant deposits. As it is, mines in those places do minimal processing, and then ship the concentrate to Chnia for refining. That's why China dominates rare earths -- they're indifferent to the pollution caused by refining them.
If Trump annexes Greenland, the real risk is the high pollution refining which he (or those he sells it to) will cheerfully site where US (or European) pollution restrictions suddenly don't reach.
My own point of view is that ICE and the CBP in their current form need to be disbanded. They are a public menace. We need to manage immigration, but not like this. Shut it down and start over from a clean slate.
My inclination would be to shut them down and lay off everybody working at either. Those who worked there pre-Trump are welcome to reapply. But no promises. Those hired under a Trump administration? Don't even bother to apply, because that's an automatic reject.
On the evidence of now 5 years of Trump administration(s), there seems no way to guess in advance what, if anything, will turn out to be a tipping point. One only notes that numerous events which might reasonably be expected to be a tipping point have turned out not to be.
No doubt 20/20 hindsight will allow future historians to write "Obviously...." But us living thru events? No way to make a meaningful prediction.
he was told on Tuesday that he needed to excise some teachings of Plato from his syllabus.
I wonder if I could win a sucker bet here. I'd bet most** of those exercised by Plato have never actually read any of it. Beyond, perhaps, whatever quotes out of context an AI might include in response to a query about possible "woke" material in the college curriculum. Any takers?
** Actually, if any have I would be surprised. But there are always a few college students who, for whatever reason, have had occasion to read with utter incomprehension.
Maybe it’s prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up.
bc, can you really believe that Trump and his henchmen are capable of that level of sophistication? Because everything I've seen leads me to believe that they have only three modes:
Threat and bluster, to get exactly what they are demanding. With maybe the occasional demand to give an excuse for something else. E.g. demanding that Maduro resign to set up an excuse to seize Venezuelan oil. (See #2 below)
Straight up violence, to get what they want (with or without threats first)
If push back is hard (i.e. threatening) enough, pretend the threats never happened. TACO Because being seen to try (as opposed to merely demanding) and fail would be intolerable.
Counter examples of where he threatened, but merely as a wake up call, would be welcome.**
** Note that his threats over NATO members 2% were in pursuit of an excuse (per option 1) to, if not exit NATO altogether, drop any kind to commitment to live up to the treaty. (Yes, I know the treaty only requires consultations if a member is attacked. But I'd be astounded if Trump grasps that.) See option 1 above -- he could care less what they actually spend.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Rememory”
Oh, I think they could.
It's just that they are constrained by the fact that the truth never seems to fit with their needs or desires. So the only way to maintain their (and, at least for the grifters, more impirtantly) and their dupes "alternate reality" is to lie. Doctoring evidence being just one of many techniques for that.
On “Moral insanity”
Oh, I think there are also narcissistic sociopaths in service of aspiring grifters. It is, unfortunately, quite synergistic.
On “Carney’s speech”
Over half a century ago, Robert Heinlein's "Future History" included a period where the United States was in the grip of a totalitarian theocracy. Sadly, the only part he seems to have missed was that it is not (yet) religion based. At least as far as its initial leader is concerned.** Sadly, the only question yet to be answered is how the succession will be determined.
I realize that, as the resident optimist, I should be talking about how we will bounce back once Trump leaves the scene. Certainly I hope that happens. But it's increasingly difficult to expect it. Alas, Carney is probably correct about where the world goes from here.
** Well, he also predicted the US would be totally isolationist (as in cutting off all interaction with the rest of the world) throughout this. The rest of the world, at this point, probably hopes it works out that way. And sooner rather than later.
On “Rememory”
Well, it's been true since the beginning of his first campaign for President that every accusation he made was actually a confession. This is just a small addition to an enormous pile. He simply cannot imagine that anyone would fail to exploit anyone and anything they could, just like he does.
"
I'm not arguing for inherent goodness. Just that we've gotten better. Or less bad, if you prefer.
As for Obama being an outlier, I wouldn't dispute that. He's definitely an exceptionally gifted politician. I'd say the most gifted in my lifetime. But within (my) living memory, no black man, no matter how gifted, could have done what he did. Or even gotten within a thousand miles of getting the opportunity to try. That's a solid indication of progress. IMHO, of course.
"
I think that, as a nation, we are in the process of moving past it. I say "as a nation" because, while I think that more and more of us have moved past it, clearly there are still a huge number who have not. A huge but decreasing number, which is why I say "in the process." Still huge, but decreasing -- not just as a portion of the population, but as a portion of the white population. That's what has people like Miller frantic.
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. "Inconceivable" is the word.
"
Edited a comment a second time, and got a note I was going to Spam/moderation. Sorry
[ed: been approved]
"
Certainly true.
But at this point, we can do something about economics and safety relatively quickly. Not solve them completely by any means, but visibly start making progress. Having solid reasons to hope and expect things will get better, because they are already visibly improving -- that puts a big weight on the side of "I think I'll just stay where I am and work on doing better here." Most people don't like the idea of up and moving to an unfamiliar place, especially one with a different language and a different culture. Give them a reason to avoid it, and mostly they will.
Climate change, on the other hand, is something where we can, at most mitigate some of the damage. But, no matter what we do, it will continue to get worse before it gets better. We can manage "get worse more slowly" and "not get as much worse". But that's the most we can do at this point.
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that's not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
"
Suppose (strictly for the sake of discussion!) that we're being reasonable when worrying about immigration**. (This addresses, but does not require, the Great Replacement Theory.) What's the most effective, the most cost-effective, (not to mention the most humane, because that's apparently of no importance to those worried about immigration) approach?
Answering that requires answering the motivation question: Why do they come? The simple answer: economics and safety. Not macroeconomic generalities, but the microeconomics of individuals. Combined with, and overlapping with, the legal environment. There are other motivations, such as moving to be near family members, or even climate. But those are tiny in comparison.
So, the obvious solution to the assumed problem, is to reduce the motivation. If there are abundant economic opportunities for individuals where they are, most people will not take on the emotional and financial cost to emigrating; basically, they'll stay home. If they can live without fear, of criminal, governmental, or other attacks, people will mostly stay home. TL;DR: remove, or even seriously reduce, the motivation, and your assumed immigration problem goes away.
So, the blindingly obvious answer has two parts: 1) improve the economies of the places your immigrants are coming from. 2) improve the governance, specifically the rule of law, of the places your unwanted immigrants are coming from. Reducing to push to move.
Are we doing anything like that? Not any more.
What we do seem to be doing instead is addressing those issues by trashing our own economy, and simultaneously trashing the rule of law. Removing the attraction. It is, after all, the difference in those which provides the motivation.
If I'm understanding correctly, one big advantage is that this "spends the money here, not elsewhere." At least in the economically ignorant view to those driving it. It's bad for us, too, but either they can't see that or they just assume it won't impact them personally.
Oh, yes. The other motivation for immigration, in some cases, is that other places are just too crowded. If you improve the economy, somewhere population growth drops, or even disappears altogether. We've seen that extremely consistently. When people get richer, they tend on average to have fewer children. Another reason to improve economies elsewhere.
** Immigration has been an enormous economic boon to this country. The people already here have consistently objected to whichever group is perceived as comprising the current bulk of the immigrants. But those immigrants built the country even so. Both physically and economically. Still do.
On “An interesting map”
Geography nerds' quiz: Part of Alaska (the panhandle, including the state capital) is not an island, but can only be reached by car by driving thru another country. What other state includes that feature?
"
Any guess (other than Africa being outside their area of study) why Ethiopia isn't included in the "never colonized" group?
"
First impression: Fascinating that Japan is grouped with North Korea as well as South. But Thailand? Where did that come from?
OK, I look at the key and get a glimmer. But it still seems pretty daft. Just for openers, it utterly ignores the realities of anything but current national boundaries.
For example, Tibet was never colonized, controlled, or influenced by Europe. And not part of China until well after European influence was being eradicated in the PRC. For that matter, all of Russia** east of the Urals should be "colonized by Europe", not part of Europe. Just like the Stans in central Asia.
** For that matter, a case could be made that even European Russia qualifies as "partial European influence" -- the cultural differences from the rest of Europe are pretty stark.
On “¿Qué quieres decir cuando dices China, por favor?”
Greenlanders are genetically East-Asian too (essentially Mongols in kayaks)
Well, if you want to get technical about it, all Native Americans (First Nations) are genetically East Asians, too.
Hmmm, wonder where they'll decide to put the reservations this time. (Well, except for those like Miller, who will go for a "final solution")
On “An open thread”
Itshould be noted that two is only the maximum. This administration demonstrates that you might get only one. Or, more often with them, none.
"
Take a deep breath, Tiny. A slow deep breath.
Charles was actually agreeing with you. If these thugs were real law enforcement, they would routinely wear body cams. (Which, be it noted, are also real useful if there's an actual court case to be made in these situations.). The reason they weren't wearing them is that they are nothing like real law enforcement.
On “¿Qué quieres decir cuando dices China, por favor?”
That timing of the snatch happening just after meeting with the Chinese has been taken by some as a warning to China, and it is difficult to imagine that the US didn’t know Maduro’s schedule, however, I would have expected Trump to crow about it in some way, so maybe it was dumb luck?
I would expect that, if the timing was dumb luck, Trump would be crowing like it was his brilliant planning. Neither do I think it likely it was a warning -- that would be a level of subtlety the current administration seems incapable of.
I think a more likely possibility is that it was carefully timed out of (absolutely never under any circumstances to be admitted!) fear of the possible Chinese reaction. Trump might (probably did) warn his buddy Putin, so Russians would be moved out of harms' way. But, not having that kind of BFF relationship with Xi, what was left was careful timing.
On “An open thread”
Certainly there is an enormous amount of that on the streets. But that behavior inevitable gets a lot more attention. Just as a riot which extends across a half dozen city blocks, in a city of several million, is all you will see on the news.
But consider the last time you arrived on an international flight. The guy doing customs inspections was also ICE (customs enforcement, right?). But, at least in my observation, those folks are courteous and polite to everybody, regardless of how they look or what their proficiency in English. If all of ICE was the thugs, I'd expect something less.
"
I think it's useful to distinguish between those ICE officers who have been hired under Trump and those who were not. The group who were hired under Trump are pretty uniformly scum who ought to be booted out as soon as possible. (With criminal charges where those can be sustained.)
The other group probably includes some bad apples. But the majority should be assumed to be normal people, absent evidence otherwise in specific cases.
I know it's tempting to generalize. ("All ICE agents are horrible!" "All white people are racists!" etc.) But it is not helpful if the goal is to solve a problem, or change a behavior which some of the group is engaging in.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
There are two obvious possibilities here. First, the importance of rare earths, and the fact that China currently dominates supplies, may have simply escaped the notice of the the ignoramuses in the administration. So no reason to tell DOGE that USGS was off limits.
Second, the administration has shown across the board distain for competence, let alone expertise, After all, everything of importance has been known for decades. So obviously no need for anything like a geologist. A possible exception of everything already being known might be earthquakes. But since those only impact California, who cares. Certainly if we don't care about knowing about hurricanes (which actually threaten Mar-a-Lago)....
"
It is well to remember that "rare earths" are not, in point of fact, rare. Certainly there are places with greater amounts (bits of Greenland among them). But the reason they are rare is just that it is extremely difficult (and, with current technology, highly polluting) to separate them from each other.
If you don't care about the pollution, you could refine them in Wyoming, Missouri, or California -- all of which have significant deposits. As it is, mines in those places do minimal processing, and then ship the concentrate to Chnia for refining. That's why China dominates rare earths -- they're indifferent to the pollution caused by refining them.
If Trump annexes Greenland, the real risk is the high pollution refining which he (or those he sells it to) will cheerfully site where US (or European) pollution restrictions suddenly don't reach.
On “An open thread”
My inclination would be to shut them down and lay off everybody working at either. Those who worked there pre-Trump are welcome to reapply. But no promises. Those hired under a Trump administration? Don't even bother to apply, because that's an automatic reject.
"
On the evidence of now 5 years of Trump administration(s), there seems no way to guess in advance what, if anything, will turn out to be a tipping point. One only notes that numerous events which might reasonably be expected to be a tipping point have turned out not to be.
No doubt 20/20 hindsight will allow future historians to write "Obviously...." But us living thru events? No way to make a meaningful prediction.
"
Was it for not being sufficiently fascist? Or for not being sufficiently sexist? (Could be both, I suppose....)
"
he was told on Tuesday that he needed to excise some teachings of Plato from his syllabus.
I wonder if I could win a sucker bet here. I'd bet most** of those exercised by Plato have never actually read any of it. Beyond, perhaps, whatever quotes out of context an AI might include in response to a query about possible "woke" material in the college curriculum. Any takers?
** Actually, if any have I would be surprised. But there are always a few college students who, for whatever reason, have had occasion to read with utter incomprehension.
On “2026, as f**ked up as 2025”
bc, can you really believe that Trump and his henchmen are capable of that level of sophistication? Because everything I've seen leads me to believe that they have only three modes:
Counter examples of where he threatened, but merely as a wake up call, would be welcome.**
** Note that his threats over NATO members 2% were in pursuit of an excuse (per option 1) to, if not exit NATO altogether, drop any kind to commitment to live up to the treaty. (Yes, I know the treaty only requires consultations if a member is attacked. But I'd be astounded if Trump grasps that.) See option 1 above -- he could care less what they actually spend.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.